The encounter, between a BBC reporter whose name is unclear (I’m working on this) and Kate Andrews of the Institute of Economic Affairs, is gripping in many ways. I personally wonder what evidence the reporter is referring to at the end of the interview, when she asserts that there is ‘plenty of evidence’ against Ms Andrews’s position, and that many women disagree with her.

The item directly refers to a report produced by Ms Andrews which can be found here (the link to the actual text is at the top right hand corner of the screen, at least it is on my computer):

This coincides with government demands on larger employers to issue figures on comparative pay among male and female employees, which Ms Andrews and I both suspect will be highly misleading. And this is itself a follow up to Ms Andrews’s earlier report on the same subject, published last November, the

The basic message is that claims of a huge pay gap between the sexes are based on a serious misreading. Figures are presented without vital context, such as age breakdown or the type of job.

This lack of context conceals some important facts. Most employers long ago began to pay equal wages for equal work, partly because they were legally obliged to do so, partly because they were morally inclined to do so, and were entirely open to employing women on equal terms to men, in some case because they actively preferred female employees to male, because nowadays they tend to be better-educated and better-fitted for much of the non-manual work which dominates today’s labour market.

It is impossible (so far) to overcome the simple physical fact that many women have babies and no men have babies. Even if women who have babies have male partners, or other close family, who are willing to look after the resulting children, or if they can afford to have them cared for during their working and commuting hours, the actual business of being pregnant and giving birth interrupts the woman’s career. This is a physical and anatomical fact. To accuse employers or employees of ‘discrimination’ for being influenced by this objective fact is to misunderstand the current use of the word. Of course, it is ‘discrimination’ in the way that one might discriminate between a mountain and a valley, or a bus and a train - because they are different. But it is not *unjust* or *irrational* discrimination, It is discrimination between two things which are relevantly, objectively different even to the most unprejudiced people on the planet.

You might respond to this by taking steps to reduce its effects to as near zero as possible – the view of the militant feminists who now dominate public policy. This involves welfare and subsidy measures to allow women to return to paid work as swiftly as possible, and to place pressure on men to become child carers on a much larger scale than now. We shall see if this is workable over the next few decades. I am fascinated by how little (verging on nothing) is done, by comparison, to help women return to paid work after long breaks taken to raise their own children. Feminists don’t seem to regard that particular choice as a valid one.

Or you might accept the motherhood difference as a fact of life, and do what you can to assist women to respond to it as they choose to do so – some in one way, some in another. Kate Andrews, as listeners to the Radio 4 ‘Today’ interview will see, has some interesting and original thoughts about how women may actually have a more sensible idea about how best to live their lives than men do. Equality is not necessarily doing exactly the same thing. Women’s ideas about the work-life balance may be wiser than men’s.

Ms Andrews also cites some interesting cases of employers who, despite not in any way discriminating against female employees, will be made to appear to be doing so by the dumb, context-free way the new figures are being gathered.

Worse still, she shows that the new rules may actually work against the hiring of women, as companies learn how to game the system so that they can *look* as if they are meeting the demands of the equality commissars. This is how rigid, fanatical dogma works. It pleases fanatics, and damages everyone else. Now that we have all forgotten what the USSR was like, it seems we are ready for another bout of this stuff.

'I'm sure I sound old fashioned, but I really object to people being given a job on the basis of getting either women or ethnic people for the sake of it.'

So do I. It's madness. Imagine a football team picking players based on sin colour rather than ability, in order that the team 'reflects the communities it serves' or some other garbage. The results of the madness would be apparent immediately.

yet this is what corporations and local authorities do every day. If you pick someone for their gender or skin colour you will eventually get a moron whose incompetence will damage the company. multiply this by however many humans employed for this reason and the outcome is obvious.

In terms of sport, i read a superb story the other day - which might not have been true, but it was funny anyhow - about some blokes entering the Boston marathon who identified as female.

Just wait for the first male tennis player to 'identify' as female and demand the right to play on the women's tour. Such a person will soon be coining the big bucks, even if they were ranked 500th in the world as a man.

I can't wait for this to happen. I want it to happen tomorrow. I used to think I wanted to see a human walk on Mars before I pegged it, but no more.

I want a male to demand the right to play with the women and start winning slams all over the place. If I can see that, I'll die happy.

John Aspinall, your question, why do I object to the women only playing best of three?
Well, I assume you watch tennis? So you must have seen the very lengthy matches that can go on in the men's? In other words it can be a real gladiatorial slog. The women however, barely break a sweat as their matches, being only best of three can be over in twenty minutes. Not good value for money.

And why don't they play a full best of five? Is it because they aren't able to, not fit enough or just that they are the fairer sex and it's all too much? Which is absolutely fine as long as their pay reflects that.
Why should the men slog it out over sometimes hours (great for spectators) and receive the same pay?

We have seen the dumbing down of expected works for women who insist they can do a man's job in say, the police, military and fire brigade, which we know is not true and is why they have been somewhat accommodated to suit their sex. And so it is with tennis. Which isn't right.

It all amounts to equivalent work between the sexes for same pay, or not.

On a wider point, we are still seeing women being given top jobs regardless of being the best candidate or not (positive descrimination) which really amounts to a patronising pat on the head but they apparently don't mind. I'm sure I sound old fashioned, but I really object to people being given a job on the basis of getting either women or ethnic people for the sake of it.

John Aspinall, "Why are you assuming the prize money has anything to do with the number of sets?"

I wasn't actually! And as it happens the women (after making a lot of fuss) now do get the same money as the men and that is what I object to on the basis that they only play best of three!

I understand your point about the men's tennis being more attractive, though I don't know if that is what is broadly thought. I personally prefer the mens but a very lot of people like the women's too. It could be almost equal?

All I've ever said, (now that the pay is equal) is that I think women ought to also play best of five!

‘But I still disagree that women should get the same pay (not sponsorship etc, that's different to pay/winnings). If they won't play the best of five sets. Which they don't, why should they get the same money as the men who do?’

Why are you assuming the prize money has anything to do with the number of sets? The prize-money / wages thing is a question of popularity. This is why the best footballers get more than the best Rugby players, and the best tennis players get more than the top squash players and so on.

I doubt that female footballers will be getting equal pay with the men anytime soon, yet they play 90 minutes just like the men. And nor should they. They generate less value than the male footballers.

Lewis Flatman, thank you for that, but I think what you say is still not the point! Though I do agree that the men's tennis is way more interesting than the women's. But I still disagree that women should get the same pay (not sponsorship etc, that's different to pay/winnings). If they won't play the best of five sets. Which they don't, why should they get the same money as the men who do?

No Vikki, It is nothing to do with how he looks whilst he digs. It is because Mr Aspinall is very good at digging, so much so people show up and are happy to pay to see him do it.

Because of this, private business likes to pay to sponsor Mr Aspinall in the hope more people will see their products whilst watching him. With this all happening Mr Aspinall gets paid more money for digging because their is more money in that area of work.

Elaine - your statistics on male and female teachers are interesting (the primary gender ratio is slightly more balanced here: about 15% of primary teachers are men), but I'm not sure there's any evidence there of discrimination. For all the reasons you cite, you would expect men to be over-represented in senior positions, and if men are more drawn to administrative roles, you would expect them to seek promotion, and hence be promoted, faster.

John Aspinall, in reply to me. perhaps analogy is the wrong term, but I'm not sure you are correct to say that men tennis players get more money because they are more popular? My point is simply that female players should not get the same money as they only play the best of three. It has less to do with popularity, it's a principle.

If you and I get paid to dig a ditch and I only dig two thirds of what you dig, should I get the same money? Or might you say you look nicer than I do digging away, muscles rippling in the sunshine and so that's why you get paid more than I? Just a thought.

@Elaine Quraishi:
***My what faith you have in the natural goodness of people to pay people "their worth".***

When I say "their worth," I mean "their worth in the eyes of the person who is paying them," not their worth in their own eyes, or as some abstraction dreamt up in the minds of idealists. If we paid every man what he considers to be his "worth" there would be no employment because there would be no money left to facilitate it. If we followed the musings of Hamlet and paid every man his worth, then most assuredly, no one would 'scape whipping.

When you go to the supermarket to purchase, let us say, a sack of potatoes, the price you pay is determined by a mutual agreement respecting the worth of the potatoes to you, and the worth of the potatoes to the grocer. The grocer may consider the potatoes worth twice as much as the price he lists, and you may think them worth only half the price he lists, but the price is actually affected by factors that go far beyond anybody's emotive desires, as is your willingness to purchase them at that price. The grocer might present you with a completely exorbitant price and rationalize it by telling you that his tax bill is due, his furnace is in need of repair, and his eldest son is at Eton, but unless you are a person of exceptional means and morals, your response will be, "I do not care what your needs are, I wish to purchase a pound of potatoes, and if you cannot give them to me at a price I consider them to be worth, I shall go to the supermarket 'round the corner and get them there." That is the consideration which prevents the grocer from pricing potatoes at what he "feels" their worth might be, and constrains him to price them in such a way that people will value, and thus purchase them from him.

An hour of labor is no different than a pound of potatoes. Both are commodities, and both are subject to the demands of the marketplace and the immutable laws that govern economic activity ... our most fervent wishes notwithstanding.

In a free market, the disparity in pay is the product of their worth to the person who is paying them.
Posted by: Douglas Oswell | 06 April 2018 at

My what faith you have in the natural goodness of people to pay people "their worth".
It's good to have faith, but we also need to be honest about how people can be taken advantage of.
I can easily see how an employer may offer men a higher salary because of men's expectations. Men still want to be the primary bread winner, so that their wives can either stay at home while their children are very young or so that their wives don't have to work as much. It's still common for both men and women to think of the woman's income as the secondary one. (according to the FiveThirtyEight website only 38% of working women earn more than their husbands)

So, it's not hard to imagine that the employer will know this and offer men more or women less because of these expectations. And it seems like no matter how many laws you have on the books it would be a difficult thing to police.

However it is harder to get away with this in publicly funded institutions, like school districts, Our salaries are posted in detail for all to see. "Lanes and Ladders" are determined by years taught and level of education.
Clear and straight forward? Well maybe not.

An interesting phenomenon occurs in education. I've noticed it and statistics support my observations. Ninety five percent of elementary school teachers are women, but only 64% of elementary school principals are. Seventy five percent of middle school teachers are women, but only 42% of middle school principals are. High schools (if I remember correctly) are closer to 50-50 male and female, but I think slightly more women (60%) and yet only 30% of high school principals are women.
My own hunch is that more men might be naturally drawn towards administration for three reasons. 1) they want a higher salary because they want their income to be able to fully support their family or they want their salary to be the higher one 2) they don't mind putting in the time (school principals don't get the summer off) and 3) they might just be more interested in leadership roles.
But I doubt if this fully explains it. Statistics also show the men have fewer years teaching experience prior to moving into administrative positions.
I think men are disproportionately recruited or encouraged to pursue those positions. Why, I don't know. Maybe for some of the same reasons they might be naturally more inclined to pursue them anyway. And male teachers do have some natural advantages with disciplining children. When they are physically bigger they are more imposing and there's actually evidence that children respond differently to a lower voice. But men are not necessarily better at discipline and management. I've seen that for myself.

The economist Thomas Sowell refuted the 'gender pay gap' back in 1984 in his book 'Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?'. There's a chapter entitled 'The Special Case of Women' in which he makes a very strong case that the pay gap is not the result of 'discrimination' but rather, as you say Peter, the choice of women to get married and have children. As he points out, unmarried women out-earn unmarried men and have done for decades. And this was from the perspective of somebody in the 1980's. I believe the data goes back to the 1920's.

I wonder if Mr Hitchens agrees that this current pay gap issue is the direct result of what he has referred to as wage slave mothers. Under Blair and to Cameron we have seen many mothers encouraged back to work by the government providing businesses with "cheap" labour - The government paying the childcare fees whilst the mother was back to work before the first milk tooth appears.

This has led to many businesses having many female part time workers as well as full time ones that lack experience (due to time out of career) therefore can be paid a lesser wage.

So when you look at the cold hard statistics it appears that women are "paid less" than men. When really might say that experienced men in lower paid jobs have been overlooked (discriminated against?) in favour of cheap female workers. And as the IEA report says, business will now deliberately discriminate against women in lower paid jobs by hiring more men to bend the "pay gap" stats.

High status males have traditionally experienced greater reproductive success, as borne out by many studies of hunter-gatherer, agrarian, pastoralist and industrial societies around the world. High status females did not enjoy any such greater reproductive success relative to males. The above finding should go a long way to explaining male status-seeking behaviour and consequent higher earnings [or in today's society, the 'gender pay gap'].

The trouble with the idea of men and women doing the same job is that no two people actually do "the same job." One will always outdo the other in terms of reliability, productivity and other desirable factors. In a free market, the disparity in pay is the product of their worth to the person who is paying them.

I've felt for a long time that lots of women appearing onTV, writing columns, who think they speak for all women and are given the loudest voices and media space and those women, MP's like Stell Creasey, are very out of kilter with many other women and are failing, or ignoring what many women actually need to have a good life balance.
It concerns me that the focus is always on women and it, seems the conversation needed to be had is on the welfare and needs of children.
Which seem to take second place.
There should be ways to support a family in tax allowances, for a child to be cared fir at home pre- school.
Whole transferable tax allowances were to be brought in after tax went individual, but wasn't, when it replaced tge okd system of the male getting tax allowance for our children.
I hear the strident female voices who want to keep on pushing for the male to be at home. While at the same time trying to have tge strong message to women they should get back to work.
Rather than let families decide between them what is best for the famiky unit.
Too many females want to decide what they think a family should want.
There is pressure on mum's to go back to work quickly, pressure on dads to stay at home.
The strident can't bear to think that too many mums want to care for preschool, or that dads might just be happy with thst.
Families kniw what suits them and may just want to ignore the shouty voices, or go with their ideas. Too much dictating going on.
Too much guilt inducing talk on modern parents.

***Undersexed man for a mate*** , surely that cannot be correct ? I thought the prevailing ideology was that all men are potential rapists , with no self control , show them a flash of stocking and we are off like frenzied foxhounds on the scent ?

Brenda Blessed: ***We must have been set up for this by the Church's teaching of sexual intercouse as Original Sin, which must have made women seek undersexed men as mates instead of virile men in order not to bar their entry into Heaven.***

A couple of strange question begging "must haves" in there. If anything fosters "undersexedness" (by your implied definition of the term) among men it is the culture of promsicuity and porn. Indeed reliable evidence indicates that the more sexed up the culture the less virile the men within that culture.

Also, it is beyond simplistic to equate male virility with endless skirt-chasing - as opposed to monogamous devotion to one woman. It's obviously next to impossible to reliably generalise about such matters, but in my observation inveterate bed hoppers don't always tend to be exemplars of rugged masculinity - to put it mildly. Even the term "ladies man" hints broadly at a certain effeminate narcissistic quality in this tribe.

If your rather weird take on eugenics had any merit, western man would be flourishing as never before, since there's never been a greater emphasis on sexual appetite as a good in itself.

I cant find any evidence of a man earning more than a woman.For example big companies like Royal Mail and Tesco pay men and women exactly the same.I think what has been happening is that men earn more because there are more men doing higher paid senior jobs.

People like Peter Hitchens ignore obvious gender discrimination, eg in the BBC - that is an actual example of blatant disgraceful sexism, and if it is occurring at the BBC then who knows where else it is occurring.

From hereon we'll have the feminists shoehorned into every position regardless of their talent. We seen on a redo of Generation Game a complete dud of a programmes put together as a demonstration of things to come. We'll end up with Daine Abbot on Countdown and in the discussion programmes whilst established male intellectuals get pay cuts and are controlled and stifled to make way for the likes of Claire Balding. It will spread to industries such as aircraft and engineering where they will be forced in with quota and the lower standard of work/skill or knowledge will be excused blaming male environments and women's problems plus the inevitable transgended/sexuality issues. We have a no better example in the appointment of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick)It's downhill all the way from here.

Its simple logic, really... why would anybody hire a man if they can hire a woman who does the same work for much less money? Does that sound like reality? Well, the feminsits claim that exactly this is happening every day.

To me its still astonishing that anybody out there believes this feminist claim. Its so absurd, you know its false even without looking up the statistics. On pure logic alone.
Most feminists' claims are completely false, but to find that out you usually have to research some statistics, on this one you dont.

As I said, Im astonished that the "gender-pay-gap" is still taken seriously. I guess you should never underestimate the stupidity of people.

One point I think often overlooked is the all consuming obsession with numbers. Is pay really the only thing that any of us should care about? I would be willing to take a pay cut in exchange for a better working environment and a shorter drive to work for example.

I don't really care how much anyone else earns as long as I have enough for myself.

I think the point regarding women's apparently better life choices is actually precisely this: that the pursuit of a high quality of life as a baseline objective is superior to the pursuit of raw pay as a baseline objective.

Raw pay is such a crude measure. It seems to me so sad that these people obsess over it to such a degree. Many modern feminist women are so petty minded and shallow.

The government, media and advertising are constantly using propaganda to make girls and women take control. Anyone who can't see that must be extremely purblind.

Along with that there is the relentless denigration of the male from the same sources.

What is probably the best way to take control of their lives if they want children? - Obtain a weak mate.

A weak mate is not a problem if the woman does not want children because there will not be a physiological effect.

However, having children with a weak, controllable mate will have serious physiological effects. Once started, the pattern continues down generations.

The males in mammalian nature fight for the right to breed. It must be that the fittest, strongest males carry the best genes, not so? They can mate with any of the females in an area that they control.

So what will happen when this is reversed and weak mates are sought? - Obviously, over many generations, physiological degeneration will take place, the more so if the women have their children close to the menopause, often with old established men instead of weak men.

This physiological aspect is being ignored at our peril.

We must have been set up for all of this by the Church's preaching of sexual intercourse as Original Sin, which must have made women seek undersexed man as mates instead of virile men in order not to bar their entry into Heaven

Then there was the deaths in the World Wars and immigration to the colonies of the best of our men.

So here we sit between a rock and a hard place as immigrants and migrants pour in to make up for our deficiencies while we argue about a gender pay gap that doesn't exist as an unjust phenomenon, just a feminist propaganda.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.